Hi volleyball fans and welcome back to Volley
Talk, the podcast created for volleyball lovers
who want to dig deep into what is going on in
NCAA and international volleyball. I'm your host,
Sarah Pavan. I'm an Olympian, beach volleyball
world champion, former Nebraska Cornhusker, and
longtime pro, both indoor and on the beach. And
I'm Adam Schultz, former indoor player, international
volleyball coach, and the show's resident stat
guy. We are... Doing a little different rundown
this week. We are overwhelmed in the best way
possible with the amount of questions we've been
getting. So since this was kind of a slower week
with NCAA play, as far as, you know, the matchups
weren't marquee, we are going to devote the majority
of the episode to knocking off a whole bunch
of listener questions. Full disclosure, we got
a lot of Nebraska questions. So we have separated
them by topic. So if you want to jump around,
if there's something you're not interested in,
go to the chapter markers on YouTube or on your
podcast app to find the section that best suits
you. But other than that, we are going to mix
a few other things into this episode. including
a game adam is excited about but basically i
moral of the story for this week is i have a
bone to pick with the big 12 and that is that
so we can't wait to dive in so let's get started
for weekly highlights and happenings the rankings
stayed pretty consistent the noteworthy movers
happened more towards the bottom of the top 25
so we had north carolina moving up to 15 from
21 they keep beating good teams i mean they push
they got smashed by stanford but i mean i'm not
saying necessarily this week but in general they
are trending in a very positive direction They've
had a couple good wins this season against highly
ranked teams. That's for sure. USC jumped to
17 from 22. Indiana jumped to 18 from 24. That's
a big leap. That's a big jump. Given who's below
them, I feel like it's fair that they're above
those teams. Yes. But I feel like 18 is generous.
Mind you, after the top 10, I'm not super impressed
with anybody. It's a messy middle. Yeah, exactly.
That's a good way to put it. BYU dropped to 21
from 17. And they keep losing. They're going
to be out of the rankings next week. You know
who should be out of the rankings. We'll get
to that in a minute. Baylor's down to 23 from
18. Iowa State just caused issues. Yes. You've
got to beat those teams. And we watched Iowa
State. I wasn't super impressed. No. Uh -uh.
I was not either. But they joined the top 25.
And they earned it. You can't say that they didn't.
But I'm just not. In watching them, I'm not sure
how they're doing it. No, they definitely earned
it. I'm not trying to take anything away from
them, but I am trying to take something away
from like everybody ranked under the top 10 because
it's just not. The lack of consistency is shocking.
It's just like the level of performance. I'm
just like, you guys, it's just the top 10 is
way better. But it's also the coach's inability
to recognize when players are not performing
for whatever reason. And make changes. There
have been a lot of head -scratching decisions
made this season. Head -scratching decisions,
but also lack of decisions. You've got 18 people
on your roster. That is your job as a coach.
Make the decisions. Yeah. Make some moves. Keep
going. Penn State is holding on by their fingernails.
They should not be in the top 25. They're at
25. They dropped from 19. I don't know what the
heck. Actually, we got a question. Let's address
it. How is Penn State still ranked? That was
the question. Their win record includes wins
over New Hampshire, Bucknell, Princeton, Central
Michigan. Is that really a strong enough resume
to outweigh their losses and keep them ahead
of other teams? No. No. I mean, the question
has a simple answer. In my opinion, they should
not be ranked anymore. Absolutely not. This is
a straight respect ranking because they won the
national championship last year. If this was
any other team, they would have been long gone.
Rankings are, what have you done for me lately?
And the answer for Penn State is they've done
nothing. They had one good week where there was
a glimmer of hope. No, they had one good game
where they beat Wisconsin. One game. We're not
even putting a week together here. And you thought
that they were riding the ship, but that has
not been the case. They 100 % should not be ranked.
Actually, someone on YouTube did some legwork
for us. Oh, yeah. Several weeks ago, we asked
where it came up somehow. when has it ever happened
that the national champion from the year before
has not made the tournament? Okay, so here's
the information that was dug up, and we greatly
appreciate you doing this. I found it very interesting.
Since 1981, the defending champion has missed
the next year's tournament three times. In 1982,
USC missed, and that was a 28 -team draw. In
1984, Hawaii missed. That was also a 28 -team
draw. In 1994, Long Beach State didn't make it,
and that was a 48 team draw. Now, the interesting
thing is Penn State is the only school. to have
never missed the tournament. Nebraska's only
missed once, and that was the first year. And
I think they went undefeated in the Big Eight
that year and still didn't make the tournament.
So I'm not sure how that works. But if Penn State
misses this year, and I kind of think this is
why the ranking is lagging. They're not going
to miss. The NCAA will make sure they don't miss
just because of that. To keep that stat going.
Lots of intrigue happening here because their
record is not very good. Terrible. I'm curious
who's not going to make it ahead of them. That
will be controversy. We are here for that. We
will talk about that. Something to keep your
eye on. But thank you for the answers to that
question. Very interesting. 100%. We also had
another question. When the weekly rankings are
released, is there any explanation given? There's
no explanation given, but I believe you can see
how many first place votes each of the and other
votes that each of the schools have gone. So
there is a bit of a tabulation. But the voters
do not have to justify the votes that they make.
Yeah, you can see the first place votes and you
can see teams that were voted for who didn't
make the top 25. But as far as an explanation,
absolutely not. As far as unexpected results
this week, we have the Big 12 to thank and that's
about it. Everything else is sailing smoothly.
Teams who should be winning are winning. I'd
say the Big 10 has a messy middle. as well the
big 10 has got a log jam at sixth place and like
ninth place or something so this is actually
going to be really interesting for those teams
because those are the ones that are on the bubble
for the tournament so these matches coming up
in the big 10 while the volleyball may not be
top tier and i'll point to the ucla northwestern
game that happened not amazing volleyball but
huge consequences on who's going to the tournament
yep But the Big 12 is just messing me up right
now. Especially after that episode we did about
them. Like, give me a break. Anyway, the results
that really messed up things further in the Big
12, which I will say in our Power 4 preview episode,
we did say that the Big 12 would be the messiest
conference. that it was the weakest of the Power
Four conferences as far as skill level of the
teams, but that it would be the most interesting
as far as the teams beating each other. So we
did predict this. However, still frustrating
doing an episode that we said what would happen.
Arizona beat BYU in four. What is going on? Kansas
State beat Colorado in three. Which, again, Colorado
is beating some good teams in the last week.
And then, not that Kansas State isn't a good
team, but that's... that's one on the books that
you would expect them to win given their previous
history. Honestly, what I think is happening
in the Big 12 is that there is an inability to
prepare for matches that you should win. I think
that all of those teams are riding roller coasters
emotionally of big wins and not overlooking teams
that are below them, but just not getting...
to the same spot to execute. You don't get weeks
off. You don't get days off. You have to prepare
the same for every single team. Respect every
single team the same. There are no freebies here,
people. So here's my question for you. When it
comes to playing a team that's close to you,
but maybe below you that you should be, whose
responsibility is it? to make sure you're prepared
is it the athlete is it the coaching staff is
it all of the above I think it starts at the
top for sure I think if a coach has a certain
attitude about playing specific teams then that
trickles down to the team and there can be complacency
so I think you need to treat every single match
the same from a routine perspective preparation
video information being disseminated about the
players whether you think they're good enough
to disseminate that information or not like you
do it and honestly as an athlete I always hated
playing the quote -unquote not good teams the
most well yeah because they're lose -lose right
you're supposed to win and if you don't win it's
a huge deal and if you do win that's what's supposed
to happen but the last upset was Central Florida
beat Iowa State in three welcome to the top 25
go we lose to UCF Wow. That's what kind of happened
around the NCAA this week. How many teams from
the Big 12 do you think are going to go to the
tournament? Like, what's the goal? If you're
in the Big 12 right now, what do you think guarantees
you a spot at the show? I know somebody out there
knows this. I don't have it in front of me right
now. How many made it last season? I'm going
to say top five or six. That was my instinct.
Because nine made it from the Big 10 last year.
I'm going to say top six. Which means that, again,
that conference. in those positions is going
to be really interesting. They're keeping us
on our toes over there in the Big 12, but yeah,
that's what happened this week in our weekly
roundup. Okay, so it's time for a game, and we're
going to play something new this week. It's something
that I've been thinking about, wanting to talk
about teams from a coach's perspective. We're
going to do the power four. Coach's mood meter.
This was actually harder than I thought. And
in order to be fair, I used a random number generator
to pick which teams we were going to include.
I think in the future, we're going to do this
by conference. But for the sake of this one,
I have eight teams that I've selected. You are
going to rank them most unhappy. to most happy
from a coach's standpoint based on where they
are. I feel like you should be answering this
question, not me. We can do it together. I ended
up picking two teams from each conference. So
here they are. From the Big Ten, we're going
to look at Wisconsin, who's currently in third
place with a record of 11 -3. Who's in second?
Purdue. We're going to look at USC, who is...
10 -4 in the Big Ten and currently tied for fourth.
We're going to look at Colorado from the Big
12, currently 10 -3 in second place, although
they are on a current two -game losing streak.
We're going to look at TCU, who is 8 -5, tied
for sixth place. They have won their last two
matches, but they play Colorado and Iowa State
next week. From the ACC, Miami and SMU both tied
for fourth with an 11 -3 record, currently winning
games, a six and a three game win streak. And
finally from the SEC, Texas at 11 -2, which is
in third place, and Kentucky, who is 13 -0 in
first place. So you tell me which coaches are
the most unhappy. Give me a quick reason, and
then we'll go up the list. So who's at number
eight for you? Are we going from? Most unhappy.
Beginning of the season or like beginning of
conference play. As of this moment in time, looking
back at the season and looking forward to it.
So if I was to talk to their coach today, what
is their mood like? I'm sure I'm going to get
roasted for these answers, but keep in mind,
I have had no time to prepare here. This is how
we play games. This is right off the fly. So
bottom two. Okay. I will say. Let's go back and
forth. Bottom two. Then I'll do my bottom two
and we'll go from there. Most unhappy. Texas.
Why? Because I feel like at the beginning of
the season, they expected to be in a first in
the SEC. And. Sitting at third currently is well
below the program's expectations. Okay. Okay.
I would have TCU at the bottom of that list.
I think that they started so well and they had
high expectations for the season. You think they
had high expectations for the season in July?
I think the coach thought they could be very
good. And you started out so well and you have
just continually fallen off the map. Like at
this point in the season, I think he's the most
unhappy with how his team is playing. Seventh,
I'm going to go Wisconsin. I know this is tough.
The reason I say that is like, yes, midsummer,
Grace Lopez had gotten injured. They had to do
a little finagling of their roster. But I think.
You know, they're always expecting to be top
two to push Nebraska. I think getting absolutely
hammered by Nebraska. And now they're not the
team that they were. Not that they expected to
be the exact same. But I think dropping into
third, I'm going to put them at seven. I would
agree. I would put Wisconsin at seven for me
as well. You never want to get embarrassed when
you're a top team. And I think that Nebraska
just showed that the gap is really big right
now with them. Plus your Purdue's ahead of you
and they lost all of their players. It's not
going the way that it should. That game should
have been competitive. You also lost your setter.
I don't think it's happy in Wisconsin right now.
Sixth, I'm going to do SMU. They are definitely
where everybody expects them to be, but I think
they thought that this was potentially a year
that they could, push Pitt or Louisville to kind
of elevate themselves above that third spot but
instead they're where they've been for the last
couple seasons I'm going to go with Texas next
for the reasons that you said I think the only
bright spot about those two losses and we kind
of talked about this was that your young players
got experience I'm not sure if I'm on the Texas
staff that I want to go undefeated I want opportunities
for those young players to learn and to grow
if the goal is to win a national championship
I don't love that I'm in third place so I'm unhappy
about that but there is a bright side to your
athletes being in those difficult situations
especially when they're freshmen fifth I think
I'm gonna do TCU I think they lost Melanie Parra,
so that was a huge hit to the program, but they
started so strong, earned the top ranking the
program's ever had, but then the drop that we're
seeing now, it's like, did they peak too early?
Did teams figure them out? Were they not all
that? And so to have that scramble happening,
but being way ahead of where I would have thought
they would be in the season, I mean, you've got
to be okay with that right now. I think I'm going
with SMU next. I think for the same reasons that
you said, you listened to their coach talk and
about the program, about what they were doing,
about what the athletes they brought in. I think
they expected to take a step this year. I personally
didn't agree with that assessment, but I think
they believed they would be better. And they're,
again, still in the same boat behind Pitt, Louisville.
I know they beat Stanford, but record -wise,
that's not the case. You've pulled in all of
these new athletes. You're trying all of these
things, and you're kind of ending up in the same
place. So I think that's got to be a little frustrating.
Fourth, I'm going to go with Miami. I think they
were kind of upper middle of the ACC last year.
They lost. at idea cologne so not that there
were huge expectations getting her back do i
think they thought they would be tied for third
currently i would be shocked i think that they
should be very happy with where they currently
are given what their outlook was in may i'm gonna
put miami at four as well for a slightly different
reason the reason for me that they're not higher
is they've been inconsistent i think they've
lost games that they shouldn't have lost. I think
they have, yes, Heredia Colon coming back was
a boon. When they play really well, they're fun
to watch. They've got a ton of energy. They've
got swagger, but it just doesn't show up consistently.
And I know from a coach's standpoint, that can
be uber frustrating where it's like, hey, we're
just not hitting our potential. And I'm not saying
they're not trying. When you know you could be
better than you are, that part is frustrating.
However, they're doing well as a program. They're
in a good place. They're slated to make the tournament,
I think. So that's why I would have them in the
middle of the pack there. Third, I'm going to
say USC. They lost a few players to graduation,
to the transfer portal. So starting fresh with
a bunch of freshmen, they were not highly ranked
going into Big Ten season to be currently tied
for fourth. When your crosstown rival was projected
at fourth at the beginning of the season, I would
have seen that as a bit of a snub. But they're
doing decently. They're getting some good wins
against teams with a really young squad. So I
think that is boding well for the future. I'm
going to go with Kentucky at three. They're obviously
winning a ton. They're in first place in the
SEC, 13 -0. But I think Craig Skinner and the
coaching staff, understands the way they are
currently playing is not good enough to beat
the top top teams I have to imagine that they
are having conversations about running the middle
about doing other things and it's just whether
their freshman setter is nervous or just not
thinking about it or not getting on the same
page it's not happening and I think he can see
where this train comes off the rails potentially
unless those two are Just unbelievably good.
So I think there's a little bit of apprehension
there, even though they are pulling wins out.
I don't think they looked amazing against Tennessee.
Hudson, little injury, that's a scare. It's good,
but there's a little concern there for what it
looks like come tournament time. Okay, I was
going to put Kentucky at two. They've had some
huge wins in the SEC, taking down Texas decisively.
I think the players that they brought in are
definitely performing. I understand what you're
saying about some red flags of winning it all,
but I think right now they are poised to win
the SEC, which is step one. This is the closest
that they have been to being a contender since
2020. I think they are satisfied, but not enough
to be first place. I'm going to go with Colorado
at two. I mean, they've had an incredible season
in the Big 12 so far. I don't think anybody pegged
them to be where they're at. Pretty much regardless
of how the rest of the season pans out. I don't
think they're going to stay at two. I think they're
going to lose a couple more matches. You've seen
where the program can go. You've beat the teams
you've had to beat. I think they have some pieces
in place that could potentially grow. You're
in the conversation and you weren't before. So
I think overall, right now, Colorado coaching
staff has to be super happy with where they are.
And that's why I'm putting Colorado at one. They
were in nobody's conversation on no one's radar.
heading into this season, I think they've already
more than exceeded what they thought they were
going to do and what they thought was possible
this season. So regardless of how it pans out,
just being satisfied, I think that has to keep
you at number one. For similar reasons, I'm picking
USC. If I'm a coach there, I'm loving our season.
We've got so much potential. We're tied for fourth
in the big... 10 with a bunch of freshmen, super
physical. There's no way they thought they were
going to be in this position at the beginning
of the season. And it's just gelled for them.
The future is just so bright. You're going to
get a chance to go to the tournament, most likely,
unless the wheels fall off in the last three
weeks. If you ask their coaching staff, hey,
you'll be in this position come, you know, the
first week of November. They're like, yeah, I'm
going to take this every single time. Yeah, I
think the USC staff is. is popping bubbly after
the weekends. I hope you guys like these games.
I keep trying to come up with things that could
be fun and interesting ways to talk about lots
of teams. Again, always open for feedback. If
you guys have thoughts or you liked it and it's
something we should throw into the rotation,
let us know. All right. So as we mentioned at
the beginning of the episode, we have just a
ton of listener questions, which is awesome.
We've separated the questions by topic. So we'll
go through them one at a time, see where the
conversation leads, and we'll leave it at that.
We are not going to make it through all of them.
There are going to be a lot left over, but we
have them all written down. So if we don't hit
yours, we haven't forgotten about you. Topic
one is Nebraska. We get a ton of questions about
Nebraska. And since we can't talk about them
because they kill everybody, we'll just answer
the questions. And we also can't talk about them
because if we do talk about them, everybody says
that we are obsessed with Nebraska. So it's a
lose -lose. Okay, question one. Sarah, I'm curious
about your thoughts on DBK's approach to practice
versus John Cook's approach to practice. DBK
seems to like to actually have her players play
slash scrimmage during practice. as opposed to
Cook's method of focusing on skills and drills
more. Also, DBK likes to use many subs to maximize
her team's collective skill set, whereas Cook
is stuck with the six to eight players and forces
them to figure things out. What's your preference?
And then Adam, how does this fit with your coaching
philosophy? I think there needs to be a balance.
Drills are very important to work on specific
techniques and to learn new skills, kind of like
expand an athlete's repertoire. I feel like just
playing, it doesn't really expand an athlete's
skill set in any way. And I think you need to
get repetition. at skills to make improvement
that being said there is a place for scrimmage
in practice like high pressure situations things
like that you have to run your systems work on
those systems i think now with the transfer portal
we are seeing a lot more coaches get away from
the drills why develop athletes if they're just
going to leave and be your competition later
i don't personally agree with that but maybe
that's a thought process i know when i played
for coach cook Probably half the practice would
be individual skill work by position. And then
we would get into more live six on six scenarios
in a drill context. I'm not a fan of just like
playing a match or straight up scrimmaging in
practice. I think there needs to be a purpose
behind six on six play in practice. Overall,
I would say a mixture. of the two is necessary.
As far as substitutions go, that's the reason
you have a full team. Like the six to ten players
that are on your bench, yes, it is important
to have them as a B -side during practice, but
everybody needs to have a role and be prepared
to come in at any time. If a player is not performing
or somebody's skill set lends itself to a particular
situation against a particular athlete or team
or strategy, absolutely they need to be brought
into the game. And again, I'll say it. That is
why you have so many people on the team. Totally
agree. What happens if one of your eight get
hurt at the tournament or late in the season,
then you're putting somebody in with no experience.
My philosophy on practice is similar to Sarah's
where I think every athlete always needs to know
what they are specifically trying to work on
in any given context, whether that's drills or
competitions. Again, assuming you have your matches
more to the end of the week, I generally like
to do skill development. Monday and Tuesday and
then you kind of ramp into more competitive that
also gives athletes a chance to recover from
playing on the weekend I think a balance is definitely
warranted and when an athlete's learning a new
skill you also they need to understand what that
skill is in isolation if they're going to take
it to a competitive environment they need to
know whether they're doing it right or wrong
so that individual skill development is really
important okay question two for Nebraska You
say that a middle cannot be the go -to player
for a team. However, Dana Retke was the go -to
for Wisconsin in their 2021 run to the national
championship. Watching Nebraska's latest matches
against Wisconsin and Minnesota, it really looks
like Alec and Jackson are doing really well as
the go -to players for Nebraska. In the tight
second set against Minnesota, the final points
to win the set all went to the Nebraska middles.
Okay. You or me. I have thoughts, but you can
go ahead. You can. Have a middle as your go -to
player is just dangerous because you can't always
get them the ball. Yes, if you pass well enough,
set them all the time. I'm completely for that.
I guarantee if we went back and looked at the
2021 stats, Dana Recchi did not get the most
number of sets. Now again, we talk about the
go -to player being the person who you want to
have the ball in high pressure moments. That
can be your middle. You just need somebody else
to be able to do it if you can't get them the
ball. Unless there's a straight -up ace, you
can always get your outside hitters the ball.
Always. Throw up a high ball. That is why we
say middles can't be the go -to hitters, is because
there are certain scenarios where it is impossible
to set them. My other point is that if you watch
Dana Redke run the slide, it is slow as hell.
It is a slow... slide which could arguably be
considered a right side attack out of system
and internationally this is why I hate her slide
so much internationally it's because it's so
slow it is there's a huge difference between
the speed that Ratke runs the slide and Andy
Jackson which makes it easier to get her the
ball because it is so high and slow okay question
three I'd love to hear more about Sarah's thoughts
on Nebraska's opposite situation why the long
leash if As both of us had said, we don't think
DBK makes decisions to be nice. If this is the
case, why isn't Sheck getting in more? Yeah,
I'm not happy with the opposite situation. Nebraska
hasn't had a dominant opposite in a while. Since
I've been there. Well, I'm a dinosaur, so that's
going way back. Honestly, they haven't needed
it. It's easy when you don't need it. I think
that that is the key. is she's a first year.
She's coming in. If she turns into something
long term, you've got her for four years and
she can be a staple for you. I think DBK is having
patience with her because she sees what the future
could be for four years with a 6 -5 opposite.
Yeah, we're talking a freshman versus a senior.
They don't need Sheck to win. So why not? Right
now they don't need Adriano to win either. But
that's what I'm saying. She can figure it out.
And she's not a blocking liability. She does
well. Her skills around the game are quite good.
Outside of she hasn't found her attacking rhythm
with Bergen Riley yet. Honestly, she's not as
good as I expected her to be. And that's fair.
But you still, you don't get a 6 -5 opposite
every day. I think there's way more upside to
letting her stay in and figure it out. And it's
not costing you wins. And I think that's why
she's playing. Question four, who is Nebraska's
biggest rival today? My instinct is Texas. I
honestly still think it's Texas, and I would
add Wisconsin into the mix. Wisconsin's a historical
rival. Texas is historical. We're going back
to big 12 years here, where it was always Nebraska
versus Texas. And that hatred ran deep. Fair,
but I think from a competitive standpoint, right
now it's Texas. They're the closest. Yeah, but
I would argue like a rivalry isn't just like
a year -to -year thing. It's longstanding. It's
built in tradition. That's why I'm saying Texas.
And granted, Nebraska swept the floor with Wisconsin
a couple weeks ago, but like in recent years
and since they've come to the Big Ten, I would
say it's developed with Wisconsin. Yeah, totally.
I guess I read that question as today question
mark meaning historical context out the window.
That's fair. Wisconsin and Texas make sense.
Our last Nebraska question for today is, what
is it that makes Bergen -Riley such a dominant
setter? Okay, full disclosure, we've gotten so
many questions about Bergen -Riley. A lot of
people think we don't like her. She's our fantasy
setter. Enough said. She's on our fantasy team.
Thank you so much. A lot of people have... Been
upset that we didn't talk about her when we talked
about the Nebraska -Wisconsin match. Fair. We
didn't talk about her. We should have. But some
follow -ups to that is it feels like Bergen -Riley
has really leveled up from last season and is
changing the standard for high -level NCAA settings.
She's forcing the middle even when it's almost
unsettable. So all the questions around her.
Why don't we like her? What makes her so good?
Is she National Player of the Year? candidate
what makes her and what makes a that are so good
okay let's get one thing straight here setters
and liberos are in the same category if you don't
talk about them They're doing a good job. I don't
recall ever saying that we don't like her. I
recall saying I think Izzy Stark's better, which
I will stand by that. We'll see what a year without
any practice does. But that's all I remember
saying is that I think Izzy Stark is better.
I don't ever recall saying that we don't like
her. I think it's the lack of... Oh, you know
what we did say last year? Her out -of -system
setting was inconsistent. I stand by that. Nebraska's
been in -system for her whole career. Last season,
her out -of -system setting was... Kind of all
over the place, I thought. I think that's fair
criticism. Now, I will say, I think she runs
a very balanced offense. I think she reads the
game really well. I think she has found... We
talk about Rebecca Alec becoming a force in the
middle. That doesn't happen only on her term.
Bergen has to find her. No, that connection is
important. And so she's done a good job with
that. She runs Andy Jackson well. I really like
her... decision -making, and I think her execution
has been really good. The timing of her dump.
Yes. Her defense is outstanding. She's very,
very good. And I think the other piece is I don't
think she's an international setter. She does
everything well, but she's not going to set for
Team USA. She could play pro here in the U .S.,
but she's not going to play. People are going
to be pissed that you said that. She's not going
to be. I just don't see it. I don't think she's
dynamic enough to play at the next level. But
she's incredibly good, and she's the backbone
of Nebraska. I think her and Jackson are the
reason they're so good. I agree that she's forcing
the middle more, especially off the net. I think
having a middle like Andy Jackson, whose window
is massive, definitely helps. But I think a lot
of people are crediting Nebraska's over 300 hitting
percentage strictly to her. While, okay, yes,
that is accurate to an extent. I think it does
a disservice to the other athletes that Nebraska
has. A hitter doesn't hit 400 or a team doesn't
hit over 300 just because of the setter. The
hitters are doing their job as well. Well, and
there's two parts to that. One, you can have
that high of a team hitting percentage when you're
always in system. So that's the passing. Well,
they're less in system now than they used to
be. fair her being able to run the slide off
less than ideal passes is opens the floor up
and being able to have a couple back roll balls
helps she does a good job of getting compromised
blocks for her hitters which goes to her credit
but your outsides still have to score the other
thing too though is that their hitters don't
make a ton of mistakes and that really helps
your hitting percentage if it's a kill or a continue
that boosts that rating. Overall, I think, as
Adam said, she is one of the best setters in
the NCAA. 100%. And we'll say it again. She was
our pick for our fantasy team. Thank you so much.
Although she's not scoring us very many points
because Nebraska wins in three all the time.
Yeah, not the best. So whatever. We're not bitter
about it. But yeah, she runs a very balanced
offense. Her decision -making is sound. She's
forcing the middle from compromised situations.
She plays good defense. She gets decent touches
on the block. All of those contribute to how
good she has become as a setter. And do I think
she's a National Player of the Year candidate?
Yes. And I think on a team like Nebraska where
not one player shines, but they are so incredibly
dominant, it's hard to pick one player to stand
out above the rest. So in a situation like that,
it should go to the setter. Okay, the next category
we created is other NCAA teams. We need to get
more listeners who are passionate about their
teams other than Nebraska. Yeah, and for everybody
who's mad about the Nebraska talk, you need to
submit questions if you're not a Nebraska fan.
Nebraska fans tune in. They submit their questions.
And just so everybody knows, I'm Canadian. I
didn't even know about Nebraska until I met Sarah.
I'm not a homer at all. I don't even think I
would say I'm a homer. of Nebraska probably more
than other teams. This year there's nothing to
be critical of except the Liberos. Anyway, that's
not going to get us any friends. Okay, question
one. Do you see anyone currently in CAA and who
hasn't played VNL? So that takes Lednicki and
Babcock off the table. Who have the potential
to be on the national team before LA, USA, or
Canada? Is there a... good enough group of top
players or is it kind of closed off to the people
who have currently been playing? Well, Andy Jackson
comes to mind for me. Andy Jackson. I would have
said Izzy Stark. Mind you, she still would have
been in college. So the timing would have been
a little iffy. I think we need to look at players
who are like not going to be in college because
they're not going to call somebody up. Who's
in college unless they're hands down better than
everybody else, I don't think. I would agree
with that. And you have to remember, there's
14 roster spots, most of which are already spoken
for. I could see Kennedy Martin maybe getting
a look. I think they would bring her to the gym
for sure. Yeah. Okay, so let's clarify. Do I
think any of those players are going to make
the Olympic roster? No. Do I think that there's
potential that some of these... athletes could
be brought to a VNL week, let's do it that way.
Because I think then you have a few more potential
candidates who could make some noise in a VNL.
Honestly, Brooklyn Delay maybe? Yeah, so the
three that pop into my mind are Brooklyn Delay,
Andy Jackson, and Kennedy Martin. I'm trying
to think if there's a libero. On the Canadian
side, I am not thinking so. No, not on the women's
side, I don't think. What do you think about
Mimi Collier? She is similar to Sarah Franklin.
She's an interesting one. Maybe. She needs to
pass really well, though. And you already said
no to Bergen -Riley. I think they'll bring her
to the gym for sure. Oh, I think out of respect,
she'll get invited to the gym, but I don't think
she can make the jump to playing at that level.
I think Erica Sayre for Stanford. She's super
young, so I would say maybe not for LA, but I
think she has potential for sure. Yeah, I think
those are probably the athletes that are on the
radar. I'm trying to think if there's any other
middles who might get a look. Do you think Koss
Afala would make it? I don't think so. It's so
hard because there's so many schools and so many
teams to like quickly run through them in my
head. The jump from college to U .S. national
team is large. You have to really separate yourself.
And again, it's not to say that some of these
athletes won't get there eventually. But we're
talking they need to be invited to the gym. They
need to go play pro. They need to elevate their
games. Like it's not going to be an L .A. thing.
Good question. I need to ponder this one a lot
more. Question two in this category. Can you
talk about what you like about USC and what is
working for them slash what they should improve
on to be a top 16 team? Well, they're almost
there. They're 17 this week. You guys mentioned
them now and then. I think this is their best
performance in recent years. Also, what are your
thoughts on their middles? So the thing I really
like about USC is potential. I mean, they're
inconsistent at best, as we've talked about with
so many teams in the NCAA. I have seen their
young players get better and better as they play.
Their team system has become... more disciplined
I like what I see in terms of their offensive
distribution I think they really try and get
their middles the ball which I also very much
like their middles are fast and they're high
and they have quick arms that's what I like they're
very physical there's a really big window they
move laterally really well there's a lot of physical
pieces in place that have high potential to be
utilized and for them to be very unstoppable
down the road. The middles are my favorite part
of USC. Absolutely. They're going to need, their
libero's not bad either. I believe she's young
as well. They're going to need to add a piece
or two on the outside. I wouldn't be surprised
if there's a few booster dollars going out for
a left side next year to the transfer portal,
just for a little bit of stability. I think the
potential for USC is similar to Stanford. Oregon
like they have there's a lot of teams out there
that are loaded with freshmen who've been forced
into a rebuild that could be serious threats
in coming years and I think USC could for sure
be one of them I will also say I've liked what
I've seen from what the coaching staff is doing
with them you can see the athletes improving
you can see what they're working on you can see
the systems coming into place I just think that
staff has done a good job with young athletes
Question three, has Texas reached their ceiling
due to how Swindle hasn't gotten any better as
a setter? You guys, I did not write this question.
I know you think I did. I didn't. I mean, Texas's
athletes are so physical that their ceiling is
based off how those players are playing. But
what do I always say? A mediocre setter can make
a great team not so hot. And a great setter can
make a not so hot team very good. I think we're
seeing option one. What I have seen from Texas
is teams have figured out that Swindle doesn't
like to get around balls passed from behind her.
The side setting. Get your hips around the ball.
Let's square up every now and then. So what that
does, though, is it eliminates them being able
to run the middle effectively. And now teams
are loading up on the outsides from a block perspective,
which... makes life miserable for the outside
hitters? I would say yes. Until she squares and
can run a good middle from around the attack
line, I think that's their limiting factor. We've
talked about Texas's passing, but I think if
Swindle worked harder to get around the ball,
she could neutralize the not -so -good passes
more than she currently is. You know I'm a fan
of bettering the ball. I think everybody is.
Swindle very rarely... betters the ball. If the
pass is good and in front of her, she's a competent
setter. But she doesn't fix passes when she has
to run, and I think that that's imperative. And
conversely, we've talked about how Bergen -Riley
is setting a good middle ball from off the net,
and I think that's a big difference between the
two. I mean, yes, she's 6 '3", but at the end
of the day, we've talked about how good offenses
run, and it's finding your hitter's window. Question
four. This question was loaded. Do that again.
Question four. You both were so great at telling
Texas what they need to do to correct their exposed
problems. How would you improve Kentucky's team
so that they can possibly beat Nebraska? I know
you're both very prejudiced towards Nebraska,
so let's see if you can meet this challenge.
Okay. Kentucky needs to set somebody other than
their left side because Nebraska is about to
munch them up. And you can be great. You can
be outstanding. But when a defense as good as
Nebraska's has time to prepare for only two players
instead of four or five, not great. So let's
get the middle running a little more. Let's make
the right side an equal threat. They won't be
an equal threat to the left sides. The game plan
against Kentucky is... Double block outside all
the time. And make the middles and right side
beat you. And see if they can do it. Do not leave
the left sides with a single block ever. React
to the other hitters. Nebraska will do that well.
Unless Carr can score. Unless whichever right
side is playing. I think they're playing mostly
thick pen now. Or Daly. Or Daly. Whichever one.
Like they need to be able to set them and score.
They almost need to not set the left side in
the first set. And make Nebraska look and go,
wait a second. Now we need to reset. I do like
how Kentucky is mixing in a lot more short serves,
though. I think that could be an interesting
tactic against Nebraska, particularly if they're
using it to take out a middle. I think their
serving strategy is one of the more interesting
ones I've seen recently. They're more creative
than a lot of teams from the service line. If
we're talking about straight improvements they
need to make, you're too predictable. Skinner
knows. They need to run a more balanced offense.
He says that time and time again, and they don't.
And I don't think they pass particularly poorly.
I think they have lots of opportunity to run
the middle. I think that the left sides have
become a safety blanket for the setter. Mind
you, I think she's a freshman. She is. I get
that, but you got three weeks to build that middle
connection with the freshie. Otherwise, it's
not going to go well come Final Four time. And
Nebraska doesn't forget that they almost lost
to Kentucky in a five at the beginning of the
season. Like, they're not about to mess around.
Okay, last question in this section. I was wondering
if you guys could talk about why Jared Elliott
wouldn't sub in one of the other outsides like
Whitney Lowenstein for Abby VanderWaal in the
matches against A &M or Kentucky. We had these
questions about Wisconsin. I think certain coaches
just have their system and they do not change.
And even one of the earlier questions about John
Cook, he used six to eight players, didn't make
changes. The thing that these coaches have in
common are their era. They're not one of the
young DBK or Dan Meske age group. They're the
old guard. Yeah. Stepping back from that, I agree
with what you're saying. I'm going to make a
case for why they didn't so that we have another
opinion. Yes, absolutely. She's a first -year
player. Her ceiling is very high. You know you're
going to need her to perform in the Final Four,
in the tournament in general, if you're going
to win. And there's no better way to learn how
to deal with those situations than to be in it
and have to figure it out. I don't think that's
Jared Elliott's thought process. I'm not saying
it is. I'm saying you could make... I don't think
he cares at all about that. With how they play
the transfer game, it's like he is looking to
win just today. Yeah, but today is this tournament.
I'm not talking four years down the road. No,
I mean like today, like this match. That would
be my case for leaving her in. If that's your
thought process long term for the tournament,
it's not a bad one because you're playing at
a new level, new experiences, new challenges.
Go back, watch the film, talk about your decision
making. All of that, I think, can be justified
if you're thinking about it. The other thing
I will say, and I've noticed this, is I feel
like a lot of coaches just look at stats and
have no feel for the game or for their players
or for what's happening. I see it all the time.
Head coaches are going to the stats guy, and
that's a good thing. I'm a stats guy. I like
that. But you have to marry what you're seeing
on the floor. If a player's having a bad game
because she didn't sleep well or something else,
you're not going to work through that. You've
got to pull that player off, put somebody else
in, give your team a chance to win. I think there's
a disconnect sometimes between coaches and what's
happening, and they rely too much on stats. Okay,
so that's the end of all the other NCAA teams
for questions. Moving on, we have a few questions
about volleyball tactics. Perfect. Love this.
So we'll go over these and we'll see what people
have written in. Can you go over into more detail
as to why, in your opinion, teams don't really
run more pipes in the collegiate women's game?
I'm always puzzled by this. I'm a Stanford fan
and I can recount on one hand the number of times
Stanford has run a pipe in the last few years.
don't think athletes can run the pipe. Specifically,
I'm thinking about Elia Rubin. Why do you think
college coaches don't like to include the pipe
in their offense? It's a very good question because
it's an incredibly useful set. I think it's run
properly. By run properly, I mean let the girls
jump. Do not set it at the attack line. Set it
way in front of the attack line and let them
go get it. But you don't see a ton of setters
run it properly. And there's no reason that you
can't run it properly. Correct. Which is the
thing I don't understand. I totally agree that
Elia Rubin could hit a really good back row ball.
I also think, against Dan Metzky's thought process,
that Chacoin could also hit a good back row ball.
The goal of the back row ball, if you can jump...
forward at all and keep that ball in front of
you you don't have to be overly physical to make
that attack work especially if there's lots of
other players in the front row and you're not
getting a three -man block if you're using it
as an out of system set becomes much harder but
if you're in system it can be highly effective
well the other thing is like a lot of teams take
their right side out of the back row and so it
eliminates the Back row ball that can be used
in conjunction with a slide or as a third attack
option if your middle isn't good at running a
slide, keeping them in front. And you see a lot
of DSs come in for certain left sides. I agree
with what Adam's saying, and I think it needs
to be implemented more, and I find it incredibly
effective when it is. But I think the NCAA substitution
rule has kind of made it so that it just can't
be run. That's a good point, but I do think there
are enough athletes who are in the back row and
playing. Oh, I am not. I'm not disagreeing with
you at all. I think it needs to be used more,
especially if you have a hitter that run a middle
hitter that runs well in front of the setter.
So effective. And Stanford does have some middles
that can do that. Running a pipe over top of
your middle in front and overloading the block
like we talked about a couple weeks ago. Unstoppable.
I think that coaches miss the depth of the set.
I think they see it at the attack line or behind
and it doesn't score. You really need to watch
where that ball is being contacted in relation
to the attack line to understand if the set is
good. You have to be standing there and watching
and maybe you don't see that angle very often.
Well, and for listeners who might not be aware,
on a back row ball, you need to... take off for
your jump behind the attack line but you can
land so far in front of the attack line and most
of these girls are physical enough and jump well
enough now that the ball can be set halfway between
the net and the attack line and they can make
great contact personally I much preferred hitting
from the back row because It just opened things
up so much. And when the ball is led like that
and you're able to jump forward, you can just
put so much on it and do so much with it. Set
more pipe balls. Keep your right sides in for
six rotations so they can be effective in the
back row too. Just a thought. A question on defense.
People say a good libero is one that you don't
notice. Does that mean if liberos are picked
for a dream team, you take the ones no one has
noticed the whole tournament? Or what is the
main criteria there? To me, this question is
a little cheeky. A little cheeky, yeah. I'm not
opposed to it. I like a little sass. Yeah. Liberos
are allowed to make spectacular digs. You can
notice a libero do a great cover, make a sprawling
dig. If you know the game and you watch, you
see them covering seams. You see them... passing
a ton of court making sure the offense is in
rhythm directing the defense setting well out
of system like all of those things and for people
who are generally choosing these awards for dream
teams they're paying attention to those things
while the average viewer might look at the spectacular
sprawling dig and go man that libero is great
generally the people picking the awards understand
what makes that person in that position good,
and those players are getting awarded. As a casual
viewer, if a team is targeting the libero on
server C, that is not a good thing. Your libero
should be able to pass well enough that teams
don't want to serve them. Obviously, when people
are attacking, it's not... I know announcers
say that it's a thought process, but I'm going
to say that it's not really a thought process
of like, oh, I don't want to hit the ball to
this player. No. You're seeing the block. You're
hitting around the block. You're seeing where
the defense moves. You're hitting to holes. If
you're capable of doing that. Otherwise, you're
just like avoiding the block. You're not actively
trying not to hit to liberos, which drives me
crazy when announcers say that. Stop it. I would
say you're not noticing liberos because like
when they do pass, they're passing well or they're
not getting served and they're just extending
rallies. So I played volleyball in college in
Chicago and USAV for 15 years after. So I. do
know the game well and I still study to this
day. Please explain to me why blockers can see
hitters starting their approach nearly parallel
to the net and have only one option to hit hard
angle, but the blockers jump straight up in front
of them. This drives me crazy. Why don't they
block hard angle? It happens all the time in
the college game. Not intentionally. Do the coaches
ever point this out? I mean, totally valid. This
comes back. to eye work. I think you would be
so shocked at how many college players watch
the ball when they're blocking. Here's a fun
little experiment for all of you who love watching
volleyball. Pick a player who is blocking and
watch their, don't watch the ball, watch their
head. Watch where the head goes as the ball is
being passed and moved around on the other side
of the court and you will know exactly what they're
paying attention to. And for all of the blockers
whose hitters blow by them into the angle, they're
watching the ball, plain and simple. They don't
even look at the hitter. It's blocking fundamentals
101. If you're an outside hitter, I would say
this isn't necessarily the middle's responsibility
because they are trying to close to the outside.
And they've got so many things to watch. I would
say that in situations like this, it is predominantly
the outside hitter's responsibility because...
They are the ones who need to find where their
hitter is, if they're coming inside, what their
angle is, whatever, and set the block for the
middle to close. If the outside is following
the play and isn't paying attention to their
hitter, that is when you see them so far out
of position, they get embarrassed on certain
plays. But yes, if a player is coming with their,
like, let's say your left side hitter and your
left shoulder is towards the net. and your whole
body is facing your setter, you are not going
to hit line with an immense amount of power.
So yeah, in that scenario, the blockers should
drop their hands into the angle. But I'm also
shocked at how I don't know what coaches are
watching. There are some coaches, obviously,
that are very good at making adjustments. But
there are some games I'm watching and the same
thing is happening. And I'm like, are the coaches
not noticing this? Like, why are they not telling
their players to do? So I would say, no, the
coaches probably aren't telling them that because
either they aren't great at noticing things live
or they're watching so many other things that
it's just not on their radar. I'm going to get
on my soapbox for one second. I can't wait. Adam's
going to be so nice. His soapbox is a nice one.
Gold plated. I think blocking is the worst taught
skill. in volleyball almost at any level. The
other thing that I think that is done incredibly
poorly, and you'll see almost every team do this,
every team has a blocking warm -up or a blocking
drill that they do in practice where you jump
in the middle and then the outside shuffle out
and then you come back and you jump in the middle
and then the middle and the outside go out. And
you know what they're doing? They're doing mindless
reps. And you know what they're looking at? Absolutely
nothing. I will bet you that 90 to 95 % of teams
train blocking with no decision making. Meaning
they're going through the motions and they know
where the ball is going to go or they know where
they're supposed to be. And you're not thinking,
you're not looking at a setter, you're not watching
a pass. You're not connecting the situation to
what skill you're supposed to do. And we do that
in almost every other skill. And I don't know
why it's not done. And this is why you see athletes
just going to a position and doing a block is
because that's what they train. In my opinion,
blocking is just not trained properly. It's not
connected with decision making the majority of
the time. And that's how Adam sees it. Oh, interesting
question. Okay. How do players consistently and
effectively tool the block? Is there a special
technique that allows them to do that? Is it
their approach, their arm swing? Their wrist
angle when they hit the ball is a skill you can
train or is it just a feature of the game based
off what you're seeing? And finally, do you think
being able to tool the block with this much ease
is more promising for a future pro career rather
than someone who's just a straight power hitter?
I was never prolific at tooling the block. That's
not true. So I'm probably not the player to ask
about this. I will say when you get to a high
enough level, just straight hitting with power,
like it doesn't matter. The defenses are so good
that you can hit it so hard and you'll get scooped
like crazy. Yes, being able to use the block
effectively will be an asset for later in your
career or whatever. Hitting the block. A, you
need to see the block. And it all comes back
to vision. But I would say it involves a lot
of wrist work. You see players who just try to
hit with power and like, Sometimes they tool
the block, but it hits the ground so hard that
they're not doing that on purpose. When you see
somebody hit the ball so hard and it looks like
it's going to be a block, but it just misses
the sideline. They did not intend for that to
happen. They got lucky. Same thing if the ball
like squeaks between a hitter's hands and goes
to the floor on their side. A blocker's hands?
Yeah. Not intentional. Not intentional. The ones
that are intentional are the ones that are going.
Oh, the sideline, like this question was referring
to Brooklyn Delay and Eva Hudson and how much
they do it. Or high out the back of the court.
And basically, you're not changing anything.
You are making your swing. The people who do
it best are the ones who are swinging high, deep
into the perimeter of the court. And if you're
doing that and you're hitting high, if it does
contact the block, you're getting a favorable
bounce. Similarly to if you're hitting down the
line, if you use your wrist to hit down the line,
you're going for a good swing. But if it hits
the block, it will deflect because of the spin
you put on the ball with your wrist. So I would
say that, yes, it works in people's favor and
you see certain players be more successful or
do it more often than others. But my opinion
is that they are just making good swings that
happen to hit the block. But it is something
you can train. Okay, the last question in our
tactics section is how does a right -handed opposite
struggle so much to hit on the left side? Or
maybe not even struggle so much, but you can
just tell they aren't as comfortable hitting
on the left, which everything would say a right
-hander should be more comfortable hitting on
the left side. And a left -handed hitter should
be more comfortable hitting on the right side.
For me, I believe it happens to be about where
you generally... contact the ball and what you
see. So when you're on your, we'll call it your
opposite side. So a right -handed right side
or a left -handed left side, the ball has to
come across your body and you're following it
with your eyes, which means you have a little
bit more time to see the block, to see where
the ball is as it's coming across. And you can
kind of cut it off or wait and come down the
line. There's that trajectory of the ball crossing
the plane of your shoulder before you hit it.
When you switch to the other side, now you're
really reaching out in front of you to hit that
hard angle swing. And that can be an uncomfortable
motion because you're used to waiting for the
ball to come across your body. And if you do
that on your dominant side, you're allowing the
block to come into play because the ball is probably
dropping or you're losing your ability to hit
angle as it gets closer and closer to you. So
for me, I think it's more difficult for hitters
because you wait so long for the ball and your
timing of your swing is, it's just visually different
for you as to when you need to contact that ball.
We don't generally answer these, so we figured
this was a good chance to do this, but there's
been a whole bunch of personal general questions.
Most of them are for Sarah, rightly so. So we'll
tee them up and we'll see what she has to say.
did people doubt you more when you started playing
beach because you were coming from playing opposite
also what was the transition like in general
i .e training and the strategies you had to learn
i'm not sure if people doubted me more because
i was an opposite or because i was just an indoor
player the number of beach only people that told
me that i would never make it on the beach because
i'm an indoor player i don't know how to think
for myself Blah, blah, blah was shocking. As
an opposite, obviously, I didn't pass for a lot
of my career. I did pass in college for a couple
of years, believe it or not. I think Adam responded
to a comment about that the other day. Nobody
ever really said anything because I was an opposite,
but comments were definitely made because I was
an indoor player. And I would say that beach
players definitely have a chip on their shoulder
about. how they can make adjustments because
they don't have a coach on the court where as
indoor players are just told what to do. And
I think to a certain extent, sure, that's true.
But once you reach a certain level, I think that
that's complete bogus nonsense. The transition
like in Japan, it was humbling. I cried a lot.
True story. I was naive enough to think that
beach was indoor, played outside. They are two
completely different sports. And for the first
time in forever, I was forced to consciously
think about how to perform skills. And these
things had been second nature to me for so long.
So going back to literally basics and having
to think through things that I haven't had to
think through for so long was interesting. Yeah,
the transition is hard. Having to completely
rewire my brain for blocking, for approach. style
for serving set like it was just it was a lot
and I almost walked away many times but I'm glad
I stuck with it helped me achieve a couple big
goals I had what are some reasons that you and
or other players switch pro teams what are some
draws for an athlete to sign with a different
club aside from financial reasons oh man I think
there are several reasons I mean Lifestyle is
a big lifestyle is a big one. Playing professional
volleyball overseas is a chance for you to be
immersed in cultures in a way that you wouldn't
otherwise be able to in ways that just traveling
or vacationing just it can't do the same thing.
So I think exploring different countries is a
huge part of it. I think, you know, sometimes
there are management conflicts that. you want
to avoid or you don't want to deal with again
or you know there might be staffing things for
a team that are you've worked with a coach or
a staff before they've moved you want to go with
them there could be strength of team how successful
the team is playing opportunities for like champions
league or club world championships or things
like that there are so many options I've known
women to go because they want to play with their
partner. There are so many reasons why people
would switch teams aside from financial ones.
I was wondering about your relationships in college
and during pro. Are you very close with people
at those levels and does college to pro change
the basis of those relationships? Social media
presents college athletics as a found family
with the girls being very close given that they
spend eight hours a day together. However, does
that closeness continue to carry over into adulthood?
I can't really speak to how it is now because
I think with the transfer portal and how much
in and out there is from programs and the NIL
where there is a discrepancy in how athletes
are compensated, I'm sure that introduces much
more complicated dynamics than when I played
in college. But when I played in college, Yes,
those relationships, it was like a second family
and those girls were my best friends. And I think
that is part of the beauty of college athletics
at that time is just we weren't being paid. We
were playing strictly for the love of the game
and for each other. And I think that there is
something so pure and that is the essence of
sport. So I would say in my experience, I was
always much closer with my college teammates
than my professional ones, because professionally,
you're all just in different. parts of life.
Like I went to a team at 21 and I was playing
with 35 year olds. What do we have in common?
You know, they're married, they might have kids
and I'm just kid myself and vice versa. When
I got a lot older, I could not relate to some
of the people I was playing with because we were
just dealing with different stuff. While I have
discovered lasting, meaningful relationships
throughout my professional career. I would say
they were more rare than my college teammates.
As far as who I still keep in contact with, honestly,
not many people. I mean, were we to cross paths,
would things be good? Yeah, for sure. You have
the social media interactions now where you comment
on each other's stuff and whatever. But to this
day, my closest friend is Rachel Holloway. And
her and I still have a really close relationship.
So she is the college teammate that I've stayed
closest to. From a psychological standpoint,
how does facing a rival who beat you in a big
moment in a previous season affect the team the
following year? Even if your roster has improved
and you're objectively a stronger team, do players
carry any mental baggage or added pressure into
those matchups? And how can coaches help them
reframe that moment? And as the follow -up question,
were there any teams that gave you PTSD as a
player and how did you overcome it? I don't know
if I can answer this question because I personally
can't relate to this. There were never any teams
that I was like scared to play or that I dreaded
playing. In Beach, I will say I had partners
who had their own previous traumas with teams.
Or, you know, in their experience before we played
together, they just could not beat a particular
team and had kind of resigned themselves to the
fact that it was just never going to happen.
I personally cannot relate to that because maybe
I was cocky or confident or stupid enough to
think that I could beat everybody at any time.
Which chalk that up to whatever you want to.
Well, as a coach, that's the mentality you want
to shoot for. To me, this question is broken
into two parts. If you've lost to a team. you
know, once or twice, I find it's generally motivation
to get after it. And you can do that. If that
number becomes four, five, six, seven, then you're
dealing with a totally different headspace for
athletes. The only way, or in my opinion, the
best way to deal with that is to just focus on
the execution of each skill and what you're trying
to do in that moment. You want to take away Those
thoughts of, oh, I can't do this or they beat
me last time. Those are essentially just distractions.
And you kind of label all of those things as
thoughts that take you away from performing in
the moment. And so you're always trying to get
your athletes to be in the moment, in this point.
What do I have to do? How am I going to perform
this skill? And what are the relevant decisions
I have to make? And if you can help them get
into that point, then all of the history and
all of that, it doesn't matter. So that's your
approach in general. Yeah, as far as the PTSD
and how to overcome it, A, that's the reason
sport exists is because you start out on equal
footing and anything can happen. That's what
is so exciting about sport. What happened in
the past and what is going to happen in the future
doesn't matter. All that matters is your preparation
and your mindset in this moment right now, as
Adam said, and how to overcome it. Prepare for
those teams the exact same way you've prepared
for every other team. Keep your routines the
same. And you're starting at 0 -0. What happened
in the past doesn't matter. Nobody cares. I'm
definitely simplifying it. I understand that
something like that is difficult to overcome.
It's all mental. It's all about you see it with
tentative swings or I don't want to make a mistake.
There are all kinds of distractions that athletes
have to deal with that take them out of their
ideal performance state. And something like this
just falls into that category. And you're constantly
working to keep your athletes in the present,
focused on what they have to do next. All right,
last question that we have here. Shout out to
our listeners in Canada. I'm one of those people
that lived in Toronto for a number of years and
followed women's volleyball in the United States.
I'm curious to learn about Sarah's recruitment
story. How does one come from Kitchener, Ontario,
little town, not that little, but kind of little,
and land at Nebraska? What universities were
in your final two or three? What put Nebraska
over the edge for you and made you commit to
there? And what advice would you give to any
other international high school volleyball player
that is looking to play volleyball in a power
four conference in the U .S.? This is a big question.
Wow. I'm going to say a couple things here because
Sarah, we know she's cocky and thinks she can
beat everybody, but she doesn't like to talk
about herself. Sarah was recruited by literally
every school in North America. So how did you
make your choice? No, actually, I wasn't. I was
not recruited by Canadian schools. Which is hilarious.
Seriously, Canadian schools did not recruit me.
That might have had something to do with your
dad telling them that there's no chance you're
going. Well, and then they were upset when I
went to the States, and I was like, okay, whatever.
You could have gone to any U .S. college that
you wanted to. How did you make your decision?
The reason that happened, the reason that so
many schools became interested, I guess, A, I
played for a club team that went to American
tournaments. So as a Canadian, if you want to
get seen by top programs, you need to play in
the States. It's really hard to convince coaches
to come watch you in Canada because that is,
why would they come watch one player in Canada
when they can watch 200 in the US for the same
weekend? Do you know what I mean? So that was
a huge part of my development. I actually, playing
for my junior and youth national team, a lot
of college coaches are involved in those programs
on the American side. And so going to those tournaments
competing for Canada against college coaches,
the word kind of got out, I guess, of like, hey,
there's this young kid playing junior national
team as a youth. And then I think the word spread.
So for context, for people who don't know, Sarah
played on the junior national team when she was
14 years old. Yeah. And then things, so things
started ramping up because of that. And then
my team went to, it all became massive when we
went to a tournament at Penn State, the East
Coast Championship, and my team won. And then
it grew even more. So if you want to play power
four, play for a club team that goes to the U
.S. for tournaments. As far as the schools that
I had narrowed it down to, my top five, I guess,
were Nebraska, Penn State, Stanford, Minnesota,
and Ohio State. Ohio State was a nostalgia thing,
I think, because older players that I knew from
Canada had gone there. It was in driving distance
of where I grew up. So I went and watched a lot
of games there growing up. So but those were
the top five. When it came down to it, I was
deciding between Minnesota and Nebraska. I think
people were shocked that I chose Nebraska because
at the time, like they were good, but they were
like a. sweet 16 level team they weren't really
they won in 2000 but after that they weren't
really making huge pushes so I think the expectation
or the thought was that I would people expected
me to go to Stanford the reason I chose Nebraska
is I had a very distinct list of things that
I wanted from a school and a program a volleyball
program and quite frankly Nebraska was the only
one that checked every box And that is how I
made my decision. It's as simple as that. What
things were missing from Minnesota and Stanford
that were on your list of things that were important?
The strength training program was elite at Nebraska.
I didn't get a good vibe from the Stanford strength
training. Minnesota's was fine, but it wasn't
that level. I knew that I wanted to major in
a science -related field. And not knowing what
the load or life would be like as a student athlete,
I wanted a place where I would have strong academic
support should I have needed it. Stanford did
not offer that. They were very snobby in their
mindset around academics, which, okay, they're
very... Honestly, the Minnesota -Nebraska differentiator
was so tough. And I remember I developed such
a close relationship with Mike Hebert, who was
the coach at Minnesota at the time. I cried when
I called him and told him I wasn't going to go
there. You know, the fan support at Nebraska
obviously was top. Academic support. The biochemistry
program at Nebraska was very reputable. And that's
what I ended up majoring in. Strength and conditioning.
The ability to propel myself into a professional
career afterward. The vibe of Lincoln was very
similar to the town I grew up in. Just, yeah,
everything. So that's how I ended up there. And
I will also say I am one of the few people who
waited until my senior year to commit. I made
sure I visited all the programs I was interested
in so I could make an informed decision. And
the rest is history. And what? Do you have any
other advice for kids in high school who would
want to play in a power four? So that's how you
go about playing. That's where you should go.
That's how you get seen. You know, what are one
or two things that you would say would allow
an athlete to compete in those conferences? Well,
I think understanding that you're not owed anything.
It is a very professional mindset. NCAA sports
at the power four level is a business and decisions
are made as such. So you're not owed anything.
This isn't club volleyball. This isn't like we're
here to play for fun. Everybody gets a chance.
It is a business. It is professional and it's
cutthroat. And you need to go in with that mindset
and understand that you need to earn everything
that you're given because nothing will be handed
to you. And not everybody is cut out for that
mindset. And that is totally fine. But that is
how pro sports operate. That's good advice. I
think we still have an obscene amount. Three
trillion. Of questions. But we might have to
do this again in another couple weeks. But this
was a lot of fun. We appreciate everybody who
submits questions. We hope that you guys like
the answers. Again, if there's any follow -ups,
hit us up on YouTube or social media. I hope
everybody enjoyed this switch up today. Yeah.
I had fun. I always enjoy answering questions.
All right. As always, we got a few matches that
we think you guys should watch this week that
we will be watching. So looking forward, Wednesday
at 7 p .m. Eastern, we have Texas A &M. versus
Florida. That could be an interesting match.
I'm finding the Florida team interesting still,
even though they're not ranked. Well, they're
not ranked, but it's mostly because they're inconsistent,
not because they're not capable of beating teams.
Which is the story for literally everybody minus
five teams. You know, who knows? Texas A &M has
had some big wins. They've also had some losses.
Same with Florida. Obviously, Texas A &M has
been more consistent than Florida, but I think
this one will be worth paying attention to. Thursday
at 9 p .m. Eastern, TCU versus Colorado. So he's
been on the downswing and Colorado had a rough
week against Kansas State. Somebody is going
to be able to right the ship on Thursday. So
we will see which team that is. Again, I'm not
expecting that to be a great game, but the implications
could be interesting. Or it could be interesting
if both teams. show up and extra interesting
if there's a dumpster fire on each side we don't
know now we start to get into the games that'll
be worth watching period well mostly yeah friday
at 10 p .m eastern pitt versus stanford stanford's
got a big week this week stanford's got a big
week this week and smu i'm curious to see how
far stanford has come with their young players
are they ready to show up and what it looks like
against really good competition stay tuned to
that my prediction could come true this week
hold on to this stanford winning the acc prediction
just to the death just i mean i said it i'm not
going to go back on it but it could happen this
week sunday we got a couple games to watch 1
p .m eastern louisville versus miami we'll see
what miami shows up And then finally Sunday at
3 p .m. Eastern, Nebraska versus USC. This will
be a really good test for USC. I don't expect
them to win. Will they win a set? Probably not.
No, probably not. But again, you have a whole
bunch of young players who have nothing to lose,
who are very physical. I'm curious to see how
they respond to Nebraska's defense and obviously
just relentless offense. That one I'm curious
more to see what the development of USC's young
players has been. That concludes this week's
episode of Volley Talk. There's always something
shaking in the volleyball world and we hope you
enjoyed this little fix. Be sure to follow the
show so you don't miss any updates and we'd be
so grateful if you'd leave us a five -star review.
You can also find us on Instagram at volleytalk
underscore podcast. If there's a topic you'd
like us to discuss, you can reach out to us on
Instagram or at info at sarahpavin .com. Thanks
so much for joining us and we'll be back next
week.